Health-Care Law Ruled Constitutional by U.S. Judge

[Anti Federalist]

Health-Care Law Ruled Constitutional by U.S. Judge

http://www.businessweek.com/news/201...u-s-judge.html

October 07, 2010, 4:57 PM EDT

By William McQuillen

(Updates with excerpt from ruling in third paragraph.)

Oct. 7 (Bloomberg) -- A U.S. judge upheld the constitutionality of the health-care overhaul President Barack Obama signed in March, rejecting an argument brought by a self- described Christian law center in the first legal victory for the new law.

U.S. District Judge George Caram Steeh in Detroit today denied the Thomas More Law Center’s request for an injunction against the law and said the group failed to prove the statute is unconstitutional under the Commerce Clause.

“The minimum coverage provision, which addresses economic decisions regarding health-care services that everyone eventually, and inevitably, will need, is a reasonable means of effectuating Congress’s goal,” Steeh wrote.

Today’s court ruling is the first to uphold the constitutionality of the law, which is being challenged in lawsuits filed across the country. A U.S. judge in Virginia has denied a motion to dismiss a claim targeting the law, and a federal judge in Florida said he is inclined to do the same.

The law center, the plaintiff in the Michigan case along with four uninsured individuals, argued before Steeh that the health-care statute creates a tax, in the form of compulsory insurance, that Congress lacks the power to enact. The center also claimed the law would violate religious freedoms by using its members’ tax dollars to pay for abortions.

The case is Thomas More Law Center v. Obama, 10cv11156, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Michigan (Detroit).

[FrankRep]

Nullification - The Best Weapon we have against Government Tyranny





Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century




State vs. Federal: The Nullification Movement
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....ation-movement

Nullification in a Nutshell
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index....-in-a-nutshell




States Can Nullify Unconstitutional Federal Laws!
YouTube - Thomas Woods : States Can Nullify Unconstitutional Federal Laws!

[Stary Hickory]

it needs to go before the Supreme Court. The law is unconstitutional. There is no provision for it in the US Constitution. That judge is a liar and a disgrace.

[sailingaway]

This is what appeals are for.

[Anti Federalist]

it needs to go before the Supreme Court. The law is unconstitutional. There is no provision for it in the US Constitution. That judge is a liar and a disgrace.

Bet ya' $100 that the law goes all the way to the SCROTUS and is ruled constitutional and legal.

[nobody's_hero]

Jury nullification.

Unless they get rid of juries.

[Stary Hickory]

Bet ya' $100 that the law goes all the way to the SCROTUS and is ruled constitutional and legal.

I don't think it will be. For starters the law is unconstituional. Secondly people are informed, a lot of things got past the courts because people were not paying attention. They are now. If the SC is viewed as corrupt then the government will lose more of it's authority and credibility. This is going to become increasingly inportant as the financial collapse/crisis weakens the government....it will need all the credibilty it can find.

A SC ruling of constitutional on such a unpopular and blatantly unconstitutional law will raise the very question "Why do we even have a supreme court?" And after that questions is asked..."Why do we have a out of control government".

It will weaken the Federal Government and strengthen the states. The Supreme court does not want to rule on this because of the fact so many know the bill and understand the Constitution.

[Pericles]

I don't think it will be. For starters the law is unconstituional. Secondly people are informed, a lot of things got past the courts because people were not paying attention. They are now. If the SC is viewed as corrupt then the government will lose more of it's authority and credibility. This is going to become increasingly inportant as the financial collapse/crisis weakens the government....it will need all the credibilty it can find.

A SC ruling of constitutional on such a unpopular and blatantly unconstitutional law will raise the very question "Why do we even have a supreme court?" And after that questions is asked..."Why do we have a out of control government".

It will weaken the Federal Government and strengthen the states. The Supreme court does not want to rule on this because of the fact so many know the bill and understand the Constitution.

I'm somewhat along this line of thought, except that today, the SCOTUS wants to remain relevant. I think the Heller and MacDonald decisions went the way they did because going the other way was too much risk to the feds of having a substantial part of the population revolt against the decision.

Same with health care and the number of state referendums, state AG suits, etc. It is clearly a law without widespread popular support or a sound Constitutional basis. The population is saying to the feds to take the commerce clause and stuff it.

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

This is unsurprising. What the hell did you think the Judiciary Branch was for? To actually uphold the rights of the people? You gotta be kidding me people.

[phill4paul]

Bet ya' $100 that the law goes all the way to the SCROTUS and is ruled constitutional and legal.

Not gonna take that bet. Nope.

[FrankRep]

You gotta be kidding me people.

I promoted Nullification from the beginning.

[Noob]

I don't think it will be. For starters the law is unconstituional. Secondly people are informed, a lot of things got past the courts because people were not paying attention. They are now. If the SC is viewed as corrupt then the government will lose more of it's authority and credibility. This is going to become increasingly inportant as the financial collapse/crisis weakens the government....it will need all the credibilty it can find.

A SC ruling of constitutional on such a unpopular and blatantly unconstitutional law will raise the very question "Why do we even have a supreme court?" And after that questions is asked..."Why do we have a out of control government".

It will weaken the Federal Government and strengthen the states. The Supreme court does not want to rule on this because of the fact so many know the bill and understand the Constitution.

On the other hand since it provides tax payer funding for abortions this is might what they want. Getting every thing ready for global warming laws that are to come, and force American's accept Family planing laws like China's One-Child Policy. Obamacare also rations the health care American's well get, which will lead to more deaths, and greater reduction of America carbon footprint they want to happen.

[phill4paul]

I don't think it will be. For starters the law is unconstituional. Secondly people are informed, a lot of things got past the courts because people were not paying attention. They are now. If the SC is viewed as corrupt then the government will lose more of it's authority and credibility. This is going to become increasingly inportant as the financial collapse/crisis weakens the government....it will need all the credibilty it can find.

A SC ruling of constitutional on such a unpopular and blatantly unconstitutional law will raise the very question "Why do we even have a supreme court?" And after that questions is asked..."Why do we have a out of control government".

It will weaken the Federal Government and strengthen the states. The Supreme court does not want to rule on this because of the fact so many know the bill and understand the Constitution.

You're basing this on the belief that they actually even care to keep a semblance of impartiality with regards to following the Constitution.
The government has gone beyond this. Including the SCROTUS.

[Stary Hickory]

You're basing this on the belief that they actually even care to keep a semblance of impartiality with regards to following the Constitution.
The government has gone beyond this. Including the SCROTUS.

I think has things get worse and worse they will want to maintain credibility. I mean it really is just recently that a really significant portion of the US has become aware that the government is corrupt and that the Supreme Court is not keeping the government honest.

Once the crisis hits in earnest, the combination of failed existing social programs, an out of control budget, inflation, and massive discooridnation in the markets will cause a serious deficit in confidence and credibility from government.

If the Supreme Court is seen to be just rubber stamping anything the government does it will lead to serious problems. If they do rule this bill Constitutional there will be serious repercussions. And the SC knows this. It's not the usual rubber stamp deal and they know it.

[Fox McCloud]

given how broad the commerce clause is interpreted these days....as mentioned by Tom Woods...basically they can get away with literally anything they want, even such things as limiting the number of children born in the country, etc...all under the commerce clause.

What's that one statement about the Constitution? That it's either ushering in big government or it would be powerless to restrain it?

[phill4paul]

I think has things get worse and worse they will want to maintain credibility. I mean it really is just recently that a really significant portion of the US has become aware that the government is corrupt and that the Supreme Court is not keeping the government honest.

Once the crisis hits in earnest, the combination of failed existing social programs, an out of control budget, inflation, and massive discooridnation in the markets will cause a serious deficit in confidence and credibility from government.

If the Supreme Court is seen to be just rubber stamping anything the government does it will lead to serious problems. If they do rule this bill Constitutional there will be serious repercussions. And the SC knows this. It's not the usual rubber stamp deal and they know it.

Well that is one way to look at it. It is plausible. Who knows what goes on in the minds of these traitors?
So I see what your saying in regards to a Machiavellian scheme.
I myself don't think that they worry about the "will of the people" or the document that enumerates theirs and the entire governments powers.
I guess the truth will soon be in the puddin'

[Austrian Econ Disciple]

I promoted Nullification from the beginning.

Indeed, but you support the Constitution, and the Constitution is explicit in its delegation of authority to the SCOTUS. In fact, the AoC never even had a federal judicial branch. Of course, the AoC isn't the Constitution, and surely it must be excoriated as anti-american, communist-filth.

Ok, had to poke a little fun there Frank. Hopefully you come around on some issues about the Constitution that you may find it doesn't exactly protect your rights, as much as it does take it away. In any event, I hope to see more Nullification only for the fact, it will ultimately lead to secession, and secession is the only true path to return liberty to its rightful place as supreme importance.

[fedup100]

This is what appeals are for.

And that is why the Supreme court has been stacked with coup supporters. NOTHING involving a states right should go before the new conquerors supreme court.

[FrankRep]

Indeed, but you support the Constitution, and the Constitution is explicit in its delegation of authority to the SCOTUS.

Article 1 Section 1 of the Constitution:

All legislative powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives.

SCOTUS, according to the Constitution, doesn't have the power.

[Stary Hickory]

Well that is one way to look at it. It is plausible. Who knows what goes on in the minds of these traitors?
So I see what your saying in regards to a Machiavellian scheme.
I myself don't think that they worry about the "will of the people" or the document that enumerates theirs and the entire governments powers.
I guess the truth will soon be in the puddin'

Well I am of the belief that corruption cannot win every single time. And it's harder for corruption to reign when the eye of the public is focused in like a laser on it. And with this SC ruling on Obamacare people will be zeroed in like maybe never before.

if the SC rules this Constitutional then it is full throttle States rights, secession, questioning the legitimacy of government, questioning whether government has any limits, questioning the legitimacy of a Democratic system that is so easily corrupted....etc

It's the next step, one way or another this beast will be slain. If we can decentralize then it all comes a part.

[Dianne]

With that Kegan weirdo, Obama now owns the supreme court. There is only one supreme court in this land, and that is the people.... the people of this land are the Supreme Court.